anon_post_announcements

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the required permission point, the fact that important/emergency announcements trigger notifications to members in the visibility scope, and that the project is auto-derived from the API key. This is real behavioral detail beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact lines, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, side effects, and the endpoint/no-projectId note. Efficient, though the endpoint string is somewhat redundant with the name and the parameter semantics gap is not addressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permission, notification behavior, and project resolution well, but leaves the rich nested body (types, visibility semantics, confirmation flag) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the body has seven nested properties (type enum, title, content, isPinned, expiresAt, visibility, requireConfirmation) that the description never explains. The only parameter-related note is that projectId must not be sent, which does not compensate for the undocumented nested fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: '发布公告' (publish an announcement). Combined with the endpoint POST /api/projects/{id}/announcements, an agent can immediately tell this creates a new announcement, distinct from the sibling get/patch/delete announcement tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the prerequisite permission (announcement:manage, with project:manage as equivalent) and the conditional side effect for important/emergency posts. It does not explicitly contrast when to choose this over e.g. anon_post_announcements_announcement_id_confirm, but the create-context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.